Great, Apple's new M1 based systems now exist on the market. Go make one for me for less than what Apple sells theirs. Should be easy according you since someone else is already doing it.
R&D is everything in making of something. Just because someone else made it doesn't mean you get to start exactly where they left off (except in cases of open source where you get their literal plans). Even in wood working or any shop type of work, you often spend more time setting up things like jigs or other custom tooling than it takes to do the actual work. Is that supposed to be a sunk cost to the builder? No, it is part of how the builder arrives at the price of the final thing being built.
I'll add one more thing to my sibling comment. This person is clearly unaware of whether there is ongoing R&D in the realm of hobby astrophotography mounts. They mentioned they're just considering getting into it. They're talking about mass manufactured goods. They were not aware that this is a field of active innovation.
We could have given someone a warm welcome to the hobby by clarifying that politely.
I know when I was getting started, I didn't know what made some things more expensive than others. I didn't know about doublet or triplet refractors, Strehl ratios, Chroma vs ZWO filters, why a MACH2 is such a grail mount over a Optron CEM120. Luckily I had nice, friendly, helpful people to talk to, instead of a wall of arrogance.
>We could have given someone a warm welcome to the hobby by clarifying that politely.
If this was Cloudy Skies or some similar site dedicated to the hobby subject matter, then sure, let's hold someone's hand while they decide to make expensive decisions.
HN is not that. It is, as the name applies, a place where tinkerers in any hobby gather. As someone that hacks/tinkers/plays/circumvents/etc, it is clear that research is step 1, 2 & 3.
Their questions are sincere. Your comparison to the M1 is not appropriate, and you're not actually paying attention to what they wrote.
They wrote that they are surprised that R&D makes up the majority of the cost, since this is an open source project. This is a fairly non-obvious feature of open source company business models. They give away the product, and its designs, for free, and solicit community collaboration. But it's usually complex or cumbersome to operationalize or build, so they then sell a set of services or pre-builds around it. Datastax and Confluent are two examples of this in the OSS domain.
Woodworkers don't market their plans as open source, put them on Github, and accept pull requests.
Don't create arrogant, sarcastic responses to sincere questions. It devalues this forum, and it's a bad look.
>They wrote that they are surprised that R&D makes up the majority of the cost,
I am as equally as surprised by their surprise about how much R&D is involved in making a "simple" lamp. Someone had to draw the plans so that the metal/plastic could be formed/shaped into the lamp. The parts had to be researched on what could suffice and be safe. Some person didn't just go "i want to make a lamp" and a lamp was created (unless they had Aladdin's lamp first). Research can be as simple as internet searching on parts, but that is still research even if people with PhDs and white lab coats were not involved. The design is still necessary in getting the lamp to a shape that is aesthetically pleasing enough for someone to want to buy it.
>Woodworkers don't market their plans as open source, put them on Github, and accept pull requests.
That's not true in the spirit to the point you are making. There are plenty of websites where wood workers offer their plans/drawings/instructions, and then allow comments where people that followed their plans made modifications. So yes, they don't necessarily use Git and PRs, but the concept is there nonetheless. Same with cooking/baking/etc.
> I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the GP.
>Don't create arrogant, sarcastic responses to sincere questions. It devalues this forum, and it's a bad look.
You're reading into the comment an emotion that did not exist when the message was sent. If you read hostility, then that's no what I was trying to infer.
> I am as equally as surprised by their surprise about how much R&D is involved in making a "simple" lamp.
I think your surprise is justified, especially since you've been in this world for a while. But I think there is an apparent (but not real) contradiction between offering designs for free so people can go and build something themselves, and then charging money for R&D. This is what is meant by the term trade secret.
re: Woodworkers and co -- sometimes. Room & Board doesn't share their designs. Tartine Manufactory probably has a cookbook.
> You're reading into the comment an emotion that did not exist when the message was sent. If you read hostility, then that's no what I was trying to infer.
I'm genuinely really happy that this is not the intent. Challenging phrases and Socratic questioning can really come off as hostile.
>Challenging phrases and Socratic questioning can really come off as hostile.
I think this is an entire new thread that could be expanded upon. This is how I was taught. Never given the answer directly, but by being asked another question designed to create further thought on how to answer the orginal question. If being offered a way for more critical thinking is considered hostile, then I weep for future generations.
R&D is everything in making of something. Just because someone else made it doesn't mean you get to start exactly where they left off (except in cases of open source where you get their literal plans). Even in wood working or any shop type of work, you often spend more time setting up things like jigs or other custom tooling than it takes to do the actual work. Is that supposed to be a sunk cost to the builder? No, it is part of how the builder arrives at the price of the final thing being built.